so chances are, the White Sox will not be drafting in the top 10, let alone getting the #1.

And this ain't the KARK speaking. This is the throughly vetted statistical projection of mathematical geniuses. At least that is what Roger has called them in the past when things like 1.8 were considered to be widely accepted facts never to be question.

So since PECOTA has proven without a shadow of a doubt that a high draft pick is now out of the question, what other lame excuses will be offered not to sign an available All-Star that just happens to play a position where the White Sox clearly have the least amount of talent.

I wonder if the leaders of the sick elephant parade have anything other than apathy and false choices based on bogus studies and revisionist history of the Cubs.

Only on this board would an All Star talent be poo poo'd in favor of a washed up Geo Soto. UNBELIEVABLE

Deplorable Mark wrote:Baseball Prospectus, home of some of the finest statistical minds in the nation have come out with their 2017 projectionshttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/White Sox are only dropping 2 games.6 teams will be worse. 4 others will also win 76so chances are, the White Sox will not be drafting in the top 10, let alone getting the #1.And this ain't the KARK speaking. This is the throughly vetted statistical projection of mathematical geniuses. At least that is what Roger has called them in the past when things like 1.8 were considered to be widely accepted facts never to be question.So since PECOTA has proven without a shadow of a doubt that a high draft pick is now out of the question, what other lame excuses will be offered not to sign an available All-Star that just happens to play a position where the White Sox clearly have the least amount of talent.

Look, I commend the research and understand your points. But some PECOTA forecasts seem odd. They have the Cardinals who won 86 last year and signed Dexter Fowler this offseason as winning the same 76 games as the Sox who won 78 and shed Eaton/Sale. Fan Graphs has the Sox winning 72 and the Cardinals at 86 for this year. I find that much easier to believe. Can't get into PECOTA to see how they arrived at their Sox forecasts as I cancelled my Prospectus subscription years ago. But here's the most important thing. Both forecasts assume Quintana, Frazier, Robertson and Cabrera are with the Sox all season. Fan Graphs has Q, Frazier, Robertson and Cabrera at about 8-9 WAR. So subtract 4 to 7 wins from whomever's forecast depending on when these guys are traded and Sox are basically 70 or less. Only two other teams in both forecasts are 70 or below, so once these trades happen Sox are right in thick of the hunt for the # 1 draft pick next year. Why screw that up needlessly ?WORST of both worlds for the Sox in 2017 would be to finish with mid -high 70's wins because they held onto Quintana and the other vets too long and added a couple "bargain vets" like Wieters and Fister. They miss the playoffs again but end up with like the 10th draft pick in 2018 (ugh !).

Only on this board would an All Star talent be poo poo'd in favor of a washed up Geo Soto. UNBELIEVABLE >>After his decent (.259) first half got him an All Star bid, Wieters hit .227 in the 2nd half of 2016 and as noted had throwing problems. FG compared the speed of the ball off the bat of Wieters to other Catchers last year and here was the conclusion."This (Wieter's) is an old player’s profile. His K and BB rates have both trended in the wrong direction over time, and his average exit speed has also gradually diminished. Like Iannetta, his liner rate is also likely to negatively regress moving forward. He’s a power-focused hitter (low grounder velocity due to uppercut stroke) without much power. I certainly understand clubs’ reluctance to invest materially in Wieters, despite the paucity of talent at the position."

That analysis, which just appeared today, cinched it for me. Why do the rebuilding Sox need to go throwing $ 5- 8 mil at a declining 31 year old when they don't have a prayer of contending and are trying to shed that same kind of player (Cabrera, Frazier) ? I say give Narvaez 400 AB's instead of the 200 he'd get with Wieters here. At least by playing him 4 games a week rather than 2, you give him the chance to face major league pitching repetitively enough to see if he can figure it out.

Deplorable Mark wrote:ITS YOU AND ROGER THAT ARE GIVING THIS BOARD THE SICK ELEPHANT PARADE

NOT ME.

Anyone else that will be a one year stopgap you want on the team? Perhaps Adam Dunn can be coaxed out of retirement. Other than Abreu, there is no one with any power. Another starter is needed as you pointed out. Buehrle doesn't seem to be doing anything right now. Maybe you can talk him off of the lake. I'm surprised you aren't touting AJ Pierzynski so he can mentor the future catchers.

What part of rebuild and go young do you not understand? You were the one who just a few years ago wanted only 80's babies on the team. You wanted anyone over 30 to be gone. Now, just because you want to start arguments, you bring up a 31 year old catcher who no one wants. Maybe there is a reason no one wants him. He's either asking for too much money or he has nothing left in the tank.

so chances are, the White Sox will not be drafting in the top 10, let alone getting the #1.

And this ain't the KARK speaking. This is the throughly vetted statistical projection of mathematical geniuses. At least that is what Roger has called them in the past when things like 1.8 were considered to be widely accepted facts never to be question.

So since PECOTA has proven without a shadow of a doubt that a high draft pick is now out of the question, what other lame excuses will be offered not to sign an available All-Star that just happens to play a position where the White Sox clearly have the least amount of talent.

I wonder if the leaders of the sick elephant parade have anything other than apathy and false choices based on bogus studies and revisionist history of the Cubs.

Only on this board would an All Star talent be poo poo'd in favor of a washed up Geo Soto. UNBELIEVABLE

So an "OPINION" from an organization that makes predictions as to the number of games a team "will" win-even one with a very good record is now PROOF without a shadow of a doubt???!!!

Deplorable Mark wrote:HILLARIOUS HOW ROGER CAN ABUSE STATS MORNING NOON AND NIGHT AND NOT A WORD FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY

THE SECOND THE KARK DOES, FRANK'S NOSE IS ALL IN MY BUSINESS

PLUS YOU CAN'T EVEN GIVE ME CREDIT FOR BACKING OFF THE TONY MONTANA LANGUAGE AND STICKING TO THE SUBJECT

OR THE FACT THAT THE KARK IS THE ONE DRIVING THE BASEBALL CONVERSATION

PBN. SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT.

I'm not quibbling about stats or arguing them. merely stated that there is no way that this proves BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.And the difference between an opinion and a statistical projection is??? semantics or an opinion with numbers?

Deplorable Mark wrote:HILLARIOUS HOW ROGER CAN ABUSE STATS MORNING NOON AND NIGHT AND NOT A WORD FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY

THE SECOND THE KARK DOES, FRANK'S NOSE IS ALL IN MY BUSINESS

PLUS YOU CAN'T EVEN GIVE ME CREDIT FOR BACKING OFF THE TONY MONTANA LANGUAGE AND STICKING TO THE SUBJECT

OR THE FACT THAT THE KARK IS THE ONE DRIVING THE BASEBALL CONVERSATION

PBN. SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT.

I'm not quibbling about stats or arguing them. merely stated that there is no way that this proves BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.And the difference between an opinion and a statistical projection is??? semantics or an opinion with numbers?

YES ARE ARE QUIBBLING

PLUS YOU LACK THE READING COMPREHENSION TO SPOT THE OBVIOUS SARCASM OF "SHADOW OF A DOUBT"

THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS CLAIMING THAT YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN MY BUSINESS.

WHY DON'T YOU HECKLE THE TWO RING MASTERS OF THE SICK ELEPHANT PARADE INSTEAD OF THE MAN THAT HAS TRIED VERY HARD TO KEEP THIS ON TOPIC FOR THE PAST 2 WEEKS

So, the statistical projections that claimed that Hillary Clinton would win the White House fall under the same category?

Or the "statistical projections" that claim that the world is heating up also fall under the same category?

(No, I'm not injecting political discussion into this baseball discussion.)

******************************

A PROJECTION IS A PROJECTION

PEOPLE CAN INTERPET THE SAME PROJECTION DIFFERENTLY

NOW A PROJECTION CAN BE DESIGNED POORLY. IN THAT CASE, ANY OPINION BASED UPON THAT PROJECTION WOULD BE FLAWED.

KINDA LIKE WHEN SOMEBODY HERE CLAIMED OBP IS 1.8 MORE VALUABLE THAN SLG. THIS WAS BASED ON A POORLY DESIGNED LINEAR REGRESSION THAT INCLUDED AT LEAST TWO INTER DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND THE 1.8 WAS MORE OF A REFLECTION OF MULTI-COLINEARITY, AND NOT THE SUPERIORITY OF OBP OVER SLG

Deplorable Mark wrote:HILLARIOUS HOW ROGER CAN ABUSE STATS MORNING NOON AND NIGHT AND NOT A WORD FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY

THE SECOND THE KARK DOES, FRANK'S NOSE IS ALL IN MY BUSINESS

PLUS YOU CAN'T EVEN GIVE ME CREDIT FOR BACKING OFF THE TONY MONTANA LANGUAGE AND STICKING TO THE SUBJECT

OR THE FACT THAT THE KARK IS THE ONE DRIVING THE BASEBALL CONVERSATION

PBN. SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT.

I'm not quibbling about stats or arguing them. merely stated that there is no way that this proves BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.And the difference between an opinion and a statistical projection is??? semantics or an opinion with numbers?

YES ARE ARE QUIBBLING

PLUS YOU LACK THE READING COMPREHENSION TO SPOT THE OBVIOUS SARCASM OF "SHADOW OF A DOUBT"

THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS CLAIMING THAT YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN MY BUSINESS.

WHY DON'T YOU HECKLE THE TWO RING MASTERS OF THE SICK ELEPHANT PARADE INSTEAD OF THE MAN THAT HAS TRIED VERY HARD TO KEEP THIS ON TOPIC FOR THE PAST 2 WEEKS

Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

Deplorable Mark wrote:HILLARIOUS HOW ROGER CAN ABUSE STATS MORNING NOON AND NIGHT AND NOT A WORD FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY

THE SECOND THE KARK DOES, FRANK'S NOSE IS ALL IN MY BUSINESS

PLUS YOU CAN'T EVEN GIVE ME CREDIT FOR BACKING OFF THE TONY MONTANA LANGUAGE AND STICKING TO THE SUBJECT

OR THE FACT THAT THE KARK IS THE ONE DRIVING THE BASEBALL CONVERSATION

PBN. SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT.

I'm not quibbling about stats or arguing them. merely stated that there is no way that this proves BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.And the difference between an opinion and a statistical projection is??? semantics or an opinion with numbers?

YES ARE ARE QUIBBLING

PLUS YOU LACK THE READING COMPREHENSION TO SPOT THE OBVIOUS SARCASM OF "SHADOW OF A DOUBT"

THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS CLAIMING THAT YOU STICK YOUR NOSE IN MY BUSINESS.

WHY DON'T YOU HECKLE THE TWO RING MASTERS OF THE SICK ELEPHANT PARADE INSTEAD OF THE MAN THAT HAS TRIED VERY HARD TO KEEP THIS ON TOPIC FOR THE PAST 2 WEEKS

Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

**************************************

Its not so much that they are wrong, its their logic is false.

For example, Roger claimed players drafted in the first 5 rounds have a 1 in 4 chance and used this as a reason why the kids should play. However, Zach Collins is the only Sox catcher that fits this description and he clearly isn't ready. so he 1 in 4 applies to nobody that actually has a chance to make the team. Yet he continued to use 1 in 4 even though it clearly doesn't apply

Then just now, in another thread, he compared Omar Varvaez to AJ Ellis, claiming them to be similiar. Yet when I looked at the stats of both, Ellis had a significantly larger minor league OPS. 785 to 687. That is a significant difference. Yet Roger insisted they are more or else equal

Maybe you should stick your nose in his business and point out how he is basing his opinion on things that aren't quite true. One is entitled to an opinion, but not to ones own facts

Deplorable Mark wrote:Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

**************************************

Its not so much that they are wrong, its their logic is false.

For example, Roger claimed players drafted in the first 5 rounds have a 1 in 4 chance and used this as a reason why the kids should play. However, Zach Collins is the only Sox catcher that fits this description and he clearly isn't ready. so he 1 in 4 applies to nobody that actually has a chance to make the team. Yet he continued to use 1 in 4 even though it clearly doesn't apply

Then just now, in another thread, he compared Omar Varvaez to AJ Ellis, claiming them to be similiar. Yet when I looked at the stats of both, Ellis had a significantly larger minor league OPS. 785 to 687. That is a significant difference. Yet Roger insisted they are more or else equal

Maybe you should stick your nose in his business and point out how he is basing his opinion on things that aren't quite true. One is entitled to an opinion, but not to ones own facts

And yet, you still are a Trump supporter!!I dont have time to look up player's stats-especially from the minor leagues. I read the discussion between the two of you -with an occasional input from 1 or 2 others.So I am not really sufficiently able to enter into a substantive discussion on "future players"I only comment on what I have observed and know-thus my remarks about the Sox "losing culture"

Deplorable Mark wrote:Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

**************************************

Its not so much that they are wrong, its their logic is false.

For example, Roger claimed players drafted in the first 5 rounds have a 1 in 4 chance and used this as a reason why the kids should play. However, Zach Collins is the only Sox catcher that fits this description and he clearly isn't ready. so he 1 in 4 applies to nobody that actually has a chance to make the team. Yet he continued to use 1 in 4 even though it clearly doesn't apply

Then just now, in another thread, he compared Omar Varvaez to AJ Ellis, claiming them to be similiar. Yet when I looked at the stats of both, Ellis had a significantly larger minor league OPS. 785 to 687. That is a significant difference. Yet Roger insisted they are more or else equal

Maybe you should stick your nose in his business and point out how he is basing his opinion on things that aren't quite true. One is entitled to an opinion, but not to ones own facts

And yet, you still are a Trump supporter!!I dont have time to look up player's stats-especially from the minor leagues. I read the discussion between the two of you -with an occasional input from 1 or 2 others.So I am not really sufficiently able to enter into a substantive discussion on "future players"I only comment on what I have observed and know-thus my remarks about the Sox "losing culture"

I see what is going on. After I enter a post, and then try to go to a different thread, I am receiving a message asking if I want to resend message,I hit cancel and it won't let me switch. Then if I hit send again it tells me that a new message has been received and decide if I want to save or modify.So i hit save --and apparently the new message entered was MINE- and it reenters

Deplorable Mark wrote:Why would i see Sarcasm in your "beyond a shadow of a doubt when most of your arguments are couched exactly that way. You are right and everybody who has a different opinion is wrong.I will give you credit- you have been remarkably civil in this discourse. (If one didn't look at the signature, one would think it could be anybody else on this board-to a degree)

**************************************

Its not so much that they are wrong, its their logic is false.

For example, Roger claimed players drafted in the first 5 rounds have a 1 in 4 chance and used this as a reason why the kids should play. However, Zach Collins is the only Sox catcher that fits this description and he clearly isn't ready. so he 1 in 4 applies to nobody that actually has a chance to make the team. Yet he continued to use 1 in 4 even though it clearly doesn't apply

Then just now, in another thread, he compared Omar Varvaez to AJ Ellis, claiming them to be similiar. Yet when I looked at the stats of both, Ellis had a significantly larger minor league OPS. 785 to 687. That is a significant difference. Yet Roger insisted they are more or else equal

Maybe you should stick your nose in his business and point out how he is basing his opinion on things that aren't quite true. One is entitled to an opinion, but not to ones own facts

And yet, you still are a Trump supporter!!I dont have time to look up player's stats-especially from the minor leagues. I read the discussion between the two of you -with an occasional input from 1 or 2 others.So I am not really sufficiently able to enter into a substantive discussion on "future players"I only comment on what I have observed and know-thus my remarks about the Sox "losing culture"

AND YET SOMEHOW, YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO BE IN MY BUSINESS

GEE, YOU WOULD THINK THAT JUST BY PURE CHANCE YOU'D OCCASIONALLY BE ON MY SIDE

ESPECIALLY SINCE I'VE MADE THE EFFORT TO FOCUS ON THE FACT INSTEAD OF THE F WORDS

I don't always disagree with you- except in politics and science.Frequemtly disagree with your "style" .But as to Sox and baseball I find you quite knowledgable -but think Roger is also.So I'm usually just an audience

frank bonifacic wrote:I don't always disagree with you- except in politics and science.Frequemtly disagree with your "style" .But as to Sox and baseball I find you quite knowledgable -but think Roger is also.So I'm usually just an audience

THE KARK IS SURE TO BE STYLIN' AND PROFILIN' LATER THIS SPRING WHEN THE ANNUAL 25TH DEBATE REARS ITS UGLY HEAD.

THIS DEBATE IS ALWAYS A CROWD PLEASER.

SO MUCH PASSION DEDICATED TO THE HANDFUL OF QUAD A PLAYERS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHICH NON MAJOR LEAGUE IS MOST WORTHY OF GETTING 100 BIG LEAGUE AT BATS TO SHOW WHY THEY ARE NOT MAJOR LEAGUE CALIBER

LUERY GARCIA, KEVAN SMITH AND A 12TH PITCHER TO BE NAMED LATER ARE EARLY FAVORITES IN THIS MUCH ANTICIPATED DISCUSSION

HOPEFULLY AVISAIL GARCIA WILL BE CUT IN MID MARCH TO MAKE ROOM FOR MORE QUAD A HOPEFULS.

AND B4 YOU PEOPLE LAUGH THIS OFF, THIS IS HOW CHRIS SINGLETON MADE IT IN 1999

FRINGE PLAYERS ARE SERIOUS STUFF AND THE KARK IS PROUD TO BE A LUNATIC FRINGE